JAD_333

Why confused? I was born in France, Marseilles to be exact.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

JAD_333

Tell you what. If I want to buy a hunting rifle or a handgun and keep in my home I don't want anything standing in my way that will prevent me from doing so. I don't like registration because that would make it easy for a tyrant to collect our guns, but I concede to the need to track gun ownership to help solve crimes.


From the quotes of his at that site, he seems incoherent on the subject, or at best, equivocal.


It's reassuring to see he's really just a calculating politician afterall.

Well, homegrown tyranny is just one threat a militia might respond to. At the time I suspect the framers had their eye on the native americans to the west and the threat of a re-run by His British Majesty to the east. (The Bill of Rights was written after the Revolutionary War). Also, it's less expensive than maintaining a large standing army. But the principle is adaptable over time. Even today, one can imagine the discouraging effect an armed citizenry would have on a homegrown, would-be dictator.

A citizen militia is not about overthrow; it's about protection. There is no right of forcible overthrow in the Constitution, only the right to possess the means of overthrow. That's why I believe "a well-regulated militia" (note "well-regulated") and the "right to bears arms" are two separate security mechanisms. A militia is an armed collective of citizens who may or may not own their weapons. But one step down, there is the individual citizen who can not only own a weapon, but has the constitutional right to bear one.


BTW, where do you read that Obama doesn't believe in revolution?

Oscar

Let's apply your right to bear arms and to form militias in Lebanon

Bill of rights? the english one?1688 ??

JAD_333

lol..don't get too excited; militias in the US Constitution are taken to be government regulated... we already had a landmark case on the issue of private militias. Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

Sorry, I was referring to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Oscar

Just to know, the US bill of rights was written with the Constitution wasn't it? (1787)

Well as you know in Europe and elsewhere the use and means of violence (guns) to protect the public order is the State's exclusive monopoly. Why wouldn't it be so in the US too?

The simple existence of the term "militia" (even if controlled) directly implies a fundamental distrust vis a vis the State or worst, a weak state(see Lebanon).

astralis

oscar,

that is exactly right. the american experience has always been one of a relative distrust of the State. this was especially true in the late-1700s, when the bill of rights was formed (with the state being weak then, as well).

the concept of the military holding exclusive use and means of violence is acceptable (if one discounts immediate protection against criminals) if one is dealing with a democratic, law-abiding government. but with a government that descends towards totalitarianism, not anymore. i believe the german case from 1930-1945 provides an example.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

antimony

I would love to, but I am not a US citizen/ Permanent Resident and so not eligible. My only exposure comes from my visits to the neighbourhod range.

At some level, that makes sense. I think it is important that you actually know how to operate a gun. during my first visit to the range, I realised how easy it is to let off a loose shot. Wouldn't want that to happen. the background check would mean that most undesirables would not be able to get a gun, right? I am not sure about the 10 day waiting period, though. What is that about, tiring you out?

That last piece was very interesting, thanks for mentioning it. At first it sounded bizarre, but a closer reading of the Public duty doctrine reveals that the police do have an obligation to protect the general public, and not individual citizens.

It seems to have been promulgated to protect government agents from frivoluos lawsuits if they are not able to help out each and every individual (which in all fairness, is not always possible).

The Public duty seems to be in the process of re-definition in some states. In North Carolina, for e.g., the Supreme court specifically excluded all govenrment agencies other than law enforcement agencies from this statute

Lovelace v. City of Shelby, 351 NC 458 (312A99) 04/07/2000

Even so, the way the courts have interpreted it seems very odd - that if the Police do not affirmatively place anyone in danger, then they are not liable to take this individual(s) out of danger

This specifically seems to contradict the Special Duty Exception to the Public Duty Doctrine which goes something like this:
http://www.courts.ri.gov/supreme/pdf-files/01-515.pdf

Again, don't have enough data to comment...

Oscar

First,The US is the society the least likely to fall into totalitarianism. Is there currently a threat against your liberties?

Second, would it happen do you need an AK-47 to protect you against say, arbitrary and undefinite detention without a lawyer to assist you or a secret spying and tape recording program of all your mails, phone calls and conversations? Would the constitution of militias make a difference? I'm afraid not..

Third, to that your counter argument would be "yes but we have the judiciary to check this out". Exactly. A totalitarian state is not a person it's a machine; the policeman coming to arrest you is just doing his job, he obeys orders, why would you try to shoot him? there will still be another one anyway.

The main reason Germany became what we know was because the laws and the executive decisions went unchecked, it was the "will of the people", there was no constitutionnal court, no judges able to say these laws were in clear violation of fundamental rights (like there is in the US). Not because citizens had no right to carry weapons.

Therefore liberties established by laws, independent judges willing to protect them and check and balance are the best arms against tyranny.

gunnut

Hmmm...I don't think you need to be a permanant resident to buy a gun. All you need to be is have legal status.

The background check is to make sure you don't have any felony convictions or restraining order against you. The 10 day waiting period (CA only, nationwide is 5 days) is to lessen the chance of someone running out and buy a gun while being angry for some reason.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

astralis

oscar,

which came first, the chicken or the egg?

that's a sheep's mentality. you are right- as long as there is an unfettered judiciary the civilian can rely upon the courts as a weapon against the unrestrained State. what happens when the courts become controlled by the state? would you passively allow the State to trammel your rights? the jews certainly knew the answer to that. when faced with State extermination they took up arms and fought, knowing FULL WELL they were going to die. you fight the machine.

it went hand-in-hand. the court was suborned by the nazis. even "popular will" was suborned, as they used militant scare tactics by using the SA. regular defenseless germans were beaten by the SA mob, while the police detailed to protect the german people were tied by higher political masters. finally the nazis subverted the state itself, thus hitler's quote about using democracy to destroy democracy.

weapons make it far harder for the State, or an organized body, to oppress the individual. it empowers. sometimes this is a bad thing, when criminals use this power. but sometimes, this is a very good thing to contest state oppression.

very true. but these, too, can fail. arms make sure that if these institutions do collapse, the individual has one final means to protect himself against oppression. and with any luck reverse it. in the end individual liberties must be protected by the individual: if not with the ballot then by the bullet.

Oscar

How many people got killed and how many others will be to preserve this last resort against tyranny?

Army5339

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of ever being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."---John Stuart Mill

JAD_333

Yes, they are the first 10 amendments.

That is a good question. It has a lot to do with the attitude of the Americans at the time. They were, first of all, suspicious of a strong government, having had a rough go of it under their former overseers. But they were also living in a relatively untamed land with "savages" about and other nations parked on their borders. They also had a strong independent streak. There is more to it, particularly the influence of Jefferson's party which envisioned a pastoral society with no standing army or navy. Defense would be the responsibility of civilian militias, somewhat the same as the Swiss model in which soldiers keep their guns at home.


That's part of the reason. The early Americans had a strong distrust of government and the US was a very weak state until it began building a serious Navy to confront the Barbary pirates and soon after, when the War of 1812 with Britain came along, it's 6-frigate Navy won several single-ship engagements against the British which at the time had a 600-800 warships. This was unheard of. The US then defeated a British force outside of New Orleans in 1815 (2 weeks after the war was officially over, but neither side knew it). In any case, after the war Britain and the US never fought again and the US navy continued to grow. In time, militias became what are now called the Reserves, also fondly known as weekend warriors, and they no longer use their own guns. That's more than you wanted to know, but I hope it helps you understand our attitude about guns.

7thsfsniper

And this exactly why I think that in a presidential election this is the one most important issue ever. Well said Army!

__________________
The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten

JAD_333

I agree. Well said on Army's part. And that brings us back to Obama and the question of his patriotism--hopefully.

Somewhat interesting backgrounder on him in the latest issue of TIME. Few clues as to why he seems to raise people's suspicion over his patriotism. A little insight into his Wright connection...early politics maybe?